It’s interesting discussing toleration. The ideas that people have about it are many and varied. One that comes up especially often, couched in a variety of terms, goes something like this: “toleration is a sort of wishy-washy multi-culturalist policy, but its basically a good thing because people should not judge others.”

There are 2 problems with this (at least).
1. Conceptually, we do not tolerate what we like or approve of. I don’t tolerate James Blunt’s music. I like it–alot. If I hear Britney Spears’ music or Rap music, by contrast, I can (with some effort) tolerate it. Given this, toleration is only possible where we at least have negative responses of some sort and there is no reason to doubt that in some cases, those responses will be fully formed judgements. I assume multiculturalists do not have such responses to the multiple cultures they seek to include in their dialogue.

2. The very idea that we should not judge others is itself odd. Persons are rationally autonomous beings. As rational beings, we tend to evaluate things as we are exposed to them–at least the things that stand out to us (for whatever reason). That is what rational beings do. Rational beings do not, for example, merely sense the fallen tree in the road they are traveling on. They sense the tree and then evaluate the situation to determine what to do next. If they sense someone with a chain saw standing next to the tree stump, they are naturally prone to evaluating that situation–perhaps judging that this person must have either stupidly or maliciously caused the tree to fall onto the road. Persons, in fact, can’t fail to judge. Moreover, we want people to judge. I don’t want to read philosophy journals full of nonsense; I rely on the editors to judge the submissions they receive so as to only publish quality work. I most definitely want someone (not necessarily the state) to judge the ability of people claiming to be medical professionals. And legal professionals. And chefs. And … the list goes on. We don’t read things like Consumer Reports, Zagat’s or Angie’s List without reason. We want someone to have done the work of judging.

Conclusion: Toleration is not a multi-culturalist agenda from the left. To know if we can or should tolerate different cultures requires judging those cultures. Sometimes we will dislike or disapprove of those cultures and decide we must tolerate them. Similarly, we will sometimes dislike or disapprove of what other individuals say or do. In both cases, this involves judging them. In many cases (more cases then not, in my experience), we will have to tolerate them if we are genuinely committed to any reasonable version of libertarianism. We can, should, and will, judge. We may or may not say anything based on the judgment. Sometimes–perhaps often–it is wise, polite, or even morally correct, not to. But that is a different issue. And, of course, there will be times (hopefully many) when we like or approve of he person or culture we judge. In those cases, we don’t interfere with them, but we should not confuse the issue by saying we tolerate them.

(I also think we should be clear with ourselves when we judge others–individuals or cultures–about whether we are judging them on some idiosyncratic basis or against objective moral standards. I leave that for discussion on other occasions.)